The Duke and Duchess of Sussex to Step Back as Senior Royals: January 2020

[Helen.CH]

Originally Posted by Parrothead

I just saw this and was about to post it. I’m not sure what to think about it, but the fact they say to become “financially independent” struck me as odd. Sounds like they’re wanting to commercialize all things Sussex related which just makes me think they only want to be royal if they can make money off of it.

It is odd, I agree. In one sentence they say, step back but still support......what does that mean???
They just want to make it a big thing like always 🙄 if they really wanted to step back, it would mean no more duties, titles, merchandising....

I would appreciate if they really stepped back with all consequences, but doubt it.

When they are launching of a hollywood-style life and in their sense better thing would be a too big contrast to what monarchy is meant to be, I hope the BP will tell them off immediately and things calm down.

No one needs Meghan, british monarchy is good the way it is and the idea if a smaller group of members as working royals is the best way for the future as many other european monarchies have proofed before.

[maria-olivia]

There is a picture of the Room where HM received important Visitors. It was shown a Picture of the past where on a little table right of the Queen was a picture of Harry and Meghan and later for another Visitor no picture anymore.
The Queen knew but I don't think this senario ?

[Kataryn]

Originally Posted by VictoriaB

I'm sorry but there is no such person as "Princess Meghan" - she is the Duchess of Sussex.

Now comes the old answer to that: she has all of Harry's titles in the female form, so she is a princess of the Uk. But the title of a Royal Duchess is higher than the simple princess, so she goes by Duchess and she would not be known as "Princess Meghan" anywhere, though she is HRH The Duchess of Sussex (a lot of other titles like The Countess of Dumbarton and then:) Princess of the Uk.



So it's part of her name, she used it as profession on Archie's birth registration but she does not use it as a title.

[Fem]

Originally Posted by Kataryn

Now comes the old answer to that: she has all of Harry's titles in the female form, so she is a princess of the Uk. But the title of a Royal Duchess is higher than the simple princess, so she goes by Duchess and she would not be known as "Princess Meghan" anywhere, though she is HRH The Duchess of Sussex (a lot of other titles like The Countess of Dumbarton and then:) Princess of the Uk.



So it's part of her name, she used it as profession on Archie's birth registration but she does not use it as a title.

Nope. True, she has Harry's all titles and she is a Princess of the UK, but the correct form is not "Princess Meghan", it's "Princess Henry".

[Kataryn]

Originally Posted by Fem

I see this argument in so many places - that Meghan and Harry have the money, so they can do whatever they choose - and I don't think people understand what kind of money you have to have to support a lifestyle like theirs. Solely security costs would blow through their fortunes in no time. Not to mention housing. As far as Frogmore Cottage goes (which is not a cottage, more like a huge house), unless the Duke and Duchess of Sussex are working royals, they'd have to pay commercial rent for that property. It's not his, it couldn't have been given to him, because the Queen doesn't own Frogmore Estate - it's part of Crown Estate, so only a lease is available. The non-working royals, like Pricess Eugenie, have to pay their rent - in her case, I think it was reported her father was paying for her cottage in Kensington Palace.

Question is if they needed so much security when they lived quietly someplace in the country as they seem to prefer. Anyone who is rich is a potential victim, but only as a member of the RF or a politician in office you can be made a victim for the state. So once they resign, they'd not need so much security anyway. Harry is a former soldier - I doubt criminals would just try to enter his house to burglar it when he's in.



As for Frogmore Cottage: we don't know how long the queen as her gift to Harry and Meghan payed for the rent already. When the politics on Grace and Favour-homes was changed and rent was asked (while before it was in the gift of the queen), actually not much changed. Then the queen received part of the earnings of the Crown Estate of rent in form of apartments and houses to grant to family and servants. Now she pays the rent to the Crown Estate for any property she want to give to someone and receives it back through the Souverain Grant. So I guess it's all clear when it comes to Frogmore Cottage. And it is not the taxpayer who payed for the modernizations to make Frogmore Cottage into a house you could rent out after it was neglected for so long, it was the Crown Estate who invested in their property portfolio. Only the winnings of the Crown Estate are shared between the taxpayer and the queen, but what is needed for the upkeep of their property is money that belongs to the Estate, not the taxpayer.

[Mbruno]

Originally Posted by Kataryn

Now comes the old answer to that: she has all of Harry's titles in the female form, so she is a princess of the Uk. But the title of a Royal Duchess is higher than the simple princess, so she goes by Duchess and she would not be known as "Princess Meghan" anywhere, though she is HRH The Duchess of Sussex (a lot of other titles like The Countess of Dumbarton and then:) Princess of the Uk.



So it's part of her name, she used it as profession on Archie's birth registration but she does not use it as a title.

The issue is not with the use of the title ‘Princess’, but rather with the use of ‘ Princess Meghan’. Under British convention, she could be called ‘Princess Henry’ , but not ‘Princess Meghan’ as she is not a princess in her own right and takes her titles from her husband.

The OP, however, was , I believe, an American and probably a casual observer of the royal scene who dropped in just for this thread. Americans often refer to ‘Princess Kate’ or ‘ Princess Diana’ , so I don’t think there is a need to be picky about it, even though it is technically wrong. Besides, this discussion is off- topic for this forum.

[Hallo girl]

Originally Posted by Gawin

I never said that.

Sorry , Yes I agree you didn't, I need to write longer posts and explain myself better.

The posters who support them are saying certain reporters have the correct story and everything else is lies. So the two I named are favoured reporters and if they say it , then it must be right. The fact that H & M might want to spin their own story doesn't appear to come in to it.

[Kataryn]

Originally Posted by Fem

Nope. True, she has Harry's all titles and she is a Princess of the UK, but the correct form is not "Princess Meghan", it's "Princess Henry".

He is not just "Prince Henry" because you are either "The Prince Henry" as the son of the king (which he isn't yet) or "Prince Henry of Wales" as a grandson of the monarch. But I'm not sure how they use that in the title once he has a Royal duchy conferred to him??? I only know that Prince XXX without the "The" or the destination of the father's title is not in use in the Uk, so it cant be just "Prince Henry" without anything else. Maybe it's Prince Henry, Duke of Sussex, shortened to HRH The Duke of Sussex? I just don't know. But if he is not Prince Henry, she can't be Princess Henry either.

[helenbeee]

Originally Posted by suztav

It's not the fact that at some point the monarchy needs to be slimmed down and "other" heirs should earn their own income (a la The Netherlands). It's not the fact that, perhaps, she is going through some type of post-partnum depression. It's not the fact that, she misses calling the shots in her life. It's not the fact that she was old enough to understand that marrying a royal would be a seismic shift in her life. It's not the fact that she may have faced racism and anti-Americanism. It's not the fact that life in the royal fishbowl is more intense than life in the Hollywood fishbow.

Bottom line -- it's the premeditated method in which they announced this without allowing the Queen to know before they informed the designers of their website. That's the issue. Total disrespect!

we have no way of knowing who knew what but I cannot imagine that this was not put out there as a possibility Im sure they talked about it with family. There is no way of knowing the circumstances dont believe what you read in papers

[Fem]

Originally Posted by Kataryn

Question is if they needed so much security when they lived quietly someplace in the country as they seem to prefer. Anyone who is rich is a potential victim, but only as a member of the RF or a politician in office you can be made a victim for the state. So once they resign, they'd not need so much security anyway. Harry is a former soldier - I doubt criminals would just try to enter his house to burglar it when he's in.

I have no idea where you came up with the "living quietly someplace in the country" - look at their website, see what they've written there. There's no quiet living there. And once again, they don't want to resign, they don't want to give up anything, they still want the HRH, the Dukedom, they just want to be free to do whatever they want and make money freely out of their fame. As the burglars part, I won't even comment on that, we all know the security - paid for by the UK taxpayers - is not because someone could steal something from them.

Originally Posted by Kataryn

As for Frogmore Cottage: we don't know how long the queen as her gift to Harry and Meghan payed for the rent already. When the politics on Grace and Favour-homes was changed and rent was asked (while before it was in the gift of the queen), actually not much changed. Then the queen received part of the earnings of the Crown Estate of rent in form of apartments and houses to grant to family and servants. Now she pays the rent to the Crown Estate for any property she want to give to someone and receives it back through the Souverain Grant. So I guess it's all clear when it comes to Frogmore Cottage. And it is not the taxpayer who payed for the modernizations to make Frogmore Cottage into a house you could rent out after it was neglected for so long, it was the Crown Estate who invested in their property portfolio. Only the winnings of the Crown Estate are shared between the taxpayer and the queen, but what is needed for the upkeep of their property is money that belongs to the Estate, not the taxpayer.

Actually, nothing is clear when it comes to Frogmore Cottage. This is not a situation that has a precedence, no one ever wanted to be half-royal and half-whatever. Harry and Meghan can live rent-free in Frogmore Cottage only if they work on behalf of HMQ and how they want to do that while being celebrities in North America is anybody's guess. The Queen could want them to live there for free, but they can't - that means, Prince Charles would have to pick up the rent out of his income, like Prince Andrew did for Eugenie (and probably Beatrice? I'm not sure where she lives).

[Mbruno]

Originally Posted by Kataryn

Now comes the old answer to that: she has all of Harry's titles in the female form, so she is a princess of the Uk. But the title of a Royal Duchess is higher than the simple princess, so she goes by Duchess and she would not be known as "Princess Meghan" anywhere, though she is HRH The Duchess of Sussex (a lot of other titles like The Countess of Dumbarton and then:) Princess of the Uk.



So it's part of her name, she used it as profession on Archie's birth registration but she does not use it as a title.

Going back on topic, it is nice that you reminded us that Meghan’s occupation was listed as. “ Princess of the United Kingdom” on Archie’s birth certificate. Apparently she never understood what her job was or she now wants a career change,.

[helenbeee]

Originally Posted by Betsypaige

If that’s his thinking, he should think again. Everyone in the family has made sacrifices - the Queen’s father paid the heaviest price, but she herself also. Then there’s Charles, his siblings (forget Andrew for now) and other Royals, past and present; It’s not like Harry has been asked to carry this lonesome burden. If this is his thinking, he just sounds like a child to me. No one is sidetracking him - but yes, there are heirs and heirs to be and he’s not one of them. It doesn’t mean he’s not loved or valued as much as his brother - or anyone else. As to making a difference in people’s lives, that’s rubbish - of course he can; what does he think his family - past and present - has been doing? Does Harry think that his father, uncles/aunts, etc... work has been useless because most of them aren’t heirs to the throne? If so, he needs to get his royal head out of his behind.

But its understandable look at Prince Andrew and Edward it is no fun being a spare. He doesnt want it and I dont think using other peoples sacrifice and suffering as a reason that he should endure the same is rational. It doesnt make it sense why does he have to suffer like the rest of the BRF who gave sacrificed did?

[suztav]

Originally Posted by helenbeee

we have no way of knowing who knew what but I cannot imagine that this was not put out there as a possibility Im sure they talked about it with family. There is no way of knowing the circumstances dont believe what you read in papers

The BP statement pretty much summed it up for me - these things are complicated and take time. H&M pushes the envelope. You don’t put up a website like that overnight.

I’d like to be sympathetic, but sorry, I just can’t. JMHO. They both sound like self indulgent, entitled spoiled children. JMHO.

The Queen, the Crown, the POW — all deserved much more respect.

[Hallo girl]

Originally Posted by Gawin

Don't believe everything you read in the Daily Mail or any other tabloid. They aim for sensationalism not accuracy.

You are right the gloves are off.

I struggle to believe that this was all triggered by a photograph, it was basically an historical document.

Harry knows his place in the succession, he was probably delighted everytime another child was born moving him further down.

I also do not think he was told he would not be part of the future. It is more likely the fact that they did not want him to leave is the reason they were trying to hold the story back.

The new web site was not set up overnight, it was all part of the bigger plan,

He is still an important part of the succession and the process, George is young, we are about 12 years until he would be able to take the crown.

If for any reason William becomes King before George is 18 a proposed regency has to be put in place.

It is also ironic that previously on other threads I had commented about Charless plans for a slimmer monarchy also using Buckingham Palace as a place of work rather than a home and I was shot down asking for proof etc, now posters are saying it is the truth and Harry is to be heaved because of it.

[Mbruno]

Originally Posted by Fem

I have no idea where you came up with the "living quietly someplace in the country" - look at their website, see what they've written there. There's no quiet living there. And once again, they don't want to resign, they don't want to give up anything, they still want the HRH, the Dukedom, they just want to be free to do whatever they want and make money freely out of their fame. As the burglars part, I won't even comment on that, we all know the security - paid for by the UK taxpayers - is not because someone could steal something from them.


Actually, nothing is clear when it comes to Frogmore Cottage. This is not a situation that has a precedence, no one ever wanted to be half-royal and half-whatever. Harry and Meghan can live rent-free in Frogmore Cottage only if they work on behalf of HMQ and how they want to do that while being celebrities in North America is anybody's guess. The Queen could want them to live there for free, but they can't - that means, Prince Charles would have to pick up the rent out of his income, like Prince Andrew did for Eugenie (and probably Beatrice? I'm not sure where she lives).

The more I think about it, my conclusion is that Meghan’s desire to live in North America could have been accommodated if the couple had approached Prince Charles ( the designated future head of the Commonwealth) to discuss with the relevant parties ( the UK Foreign Office, the.Canadian government, etc.) the possibility of setting up a new Commonwealth agency in Canada covering the entire Western Hemisphere including the Caribbean. Harry could have been appointed to that agency then in an official capacity as a British representative with costs paid under the FCO budget.

The problem seems to be that the couple was not satisfied simply with living overseas. They wanted “ financial independence” ( in terms) , which means actually the possibility to pursue their. “ progressive” agenda independently and monetize the Sussex brand. And they wanted to be outside the chain of command and not under Prince Charies or the Cambridges. That is where things get tricky and, perhaps, unworkable.

[texankitcat]

Originally Posted by JR76

To me what's said about Queen Elizabeth wanting Harry to discuss things over with Charles before reporting what they've agreed upon to her, shows that Charles is now the head of the family and as the future king the one who decides on matters that affects the future of both the family and the monarchy as a whole.
Naturally the Queen has to sign off on everything but both the handling of Andrew and now the Sussexes makes it look like she's delegated the decision making process & the implementation of it to Charles who by the looks of it includes William more and more.

Yes, it makes perfect sense and is the right plan of action. All the current events affecting the BRF directly affects his not so far off reign. Not to mention that this is his son. William’s future role will also be affected, so he should be involved as well.

[Alison H]

If they wanted to step down from royal duties completely, and live their own lives, as Princess Margaret’s children and Princess Anne’s children do, then I think people would be very disappointed but there couldn’t really be any objection: it would be their choice. Or if they wanted to do what Beatrice and Eugenie do – get jobs and not carry out royal engagements or receive any public money, but still act as patrons for charities, that would probably work OK, with all the talk of a “slimmed down monarchy”.

What they can’t do is expect either the taxpayer or Prince Charles to fund their lifestyle and security if they’re giving nothing back, or to cash in on the royal name.

Having said which, I can't see how there can be any way to stop them, legally, if they wanted to do a book deal, or accept money to go on talk shows, or give after dinner speeches. It would be very embarrassing for the Royal Family, and I would sincerely hope that Harry would have enough respect for the Queen not to do that, but I don't think there'd be any way of stopping them.

[Lilyflo]

I feel very sad about this latest development - sad for all of them.

Harry has had a tough life in many ways & unlike William, he didn't have the good fortune to meet someone at a young age with a family that could provide emotional security & a degree of normality. It's been clear for years that he craved family life and he floundered a bit to find his role. He's been open about his struggles with mental health & how the trauma of losing his mother has affected his ability to deal with the press & public events.

I think falling in love with Meghan has healed him somewhat & he now has the family he always wanted but the negative press around Meghan & how that's affecting her has driven him to seek ways to exert more control of his situation. Perhaps he also fears for his son's wellbeing growing up in an environment where vitriolic attacks on his mother are frequent & deemed acceptable.

However, I think Harry & Meghan haven't always helped the situation & in hindsight I think it was a mistake for Meghan to start her own initiatives so soon into the marriage. A lower profile & activities in a supporting role would have served them both better & helped to establish them as part of the BRF firm rather than a satellite operating in isolation, which it has often looked like.

What is 'the firm' these days though? I question whether it is operating as well as it might because it appears to be a disparate group of people all doing their own thing rather than a cohesive team supporting the monarchy. That situation has a long & complex history, which I won't elaborate on in this thread but the relative 'freedom to do their own thing' has resulted in some members being successful & others floundering or failing. Which brings me back to Harry, who appears lost & unsure of his worth to the firm or his role within it.

Marrying into the BRF is more monumental than most people outside could ever envisage. You're marrying an institution & if you've suddenly become a working royal, I wonder how conducive that is to happiness if you have your own goals & a pace of work that doesn't match. I think you have to accept some loss of personal autonomy & perhaps that would be easier if you have a clear understanding of your place within that institution & feel that you're a valued part of it. It doesn't look to me as though Harry or Meghan have that clarity or feel as supported & valued as they need to be.

I'm concerned that in this vulnerable state, they will seek & take advice from people who tell them what they want to hear in the short term & end up dividing them from the BRF, rather than people who might be able to find a longer term solution to their unhappiness & keep them within it.

[Mbruno]

Originally Posted by helenbeee

But its understandable look at Prince Andrew and Edward it is no fun being a spare. He doesnt want it and I dont think using other peoples sacrifice and suffering as a reason that he should endure the same is rational. It doesnt make it sense why does he have to suffer like the rest of the BRF who gave sacrificed did?

Sorry, I don’t understand your point. How is being the second son of a monarch ( or a future monarch) in any way equivalent to ‘ suffering’ or something unbearable ?

Incidentally, Harry is not the spare. Right now, Charles is the heir and William is the spare. And, after that, George will be the heir and Charlotte will be the spare. Harry is only 6th in line although he sees himself as a “ senior royal”. Technically, an argument can be made that his uncles, despite being lower in the line of succession, actually have higher precedence as long as the Queen is alive because they are the Queen’s sons and Harry is only a grandson.

[LadyGlendower]

Originally Posted by VictoriaB

It's been interesting to read the opinion on this thread.

My own view is that Meghan and Harry have obviously been very unhappy for some time. From a humanitarian perspective, its cruel to keep someone in a situation in which they are so obviously unhappy. From a practical point of view people unhappy in their job are generally not going to be effective in that job.

For these reasons I don't have a problem with the Sussex's decision. I do have a problem with how it happened. As many others have said, springing the public announcement on the family was unnecessary and showed no respect for the Queen, Charles or William.

Now that it has happened, I agree with those who have said it must be a clean break rather than the half in/half out version on their web page. I have no problem with them going to live quietly in Canada or the US. I do have a problem with them setting up some sort of rival Court.

Likewise, if they are not working for the Crown then no public funding including from the Duchy, no protection paid for by British (or Canadian) tax payers and commercial rent paid for on Frogmore.

I am also uncomfortable with them using their royal titles for commercial purposes if the income is not going 100% to charity. If they want to endorse products or take speaking engagements and live off the proceeds - even a small amount of those proceeds - then do it as Harry and Meghan Mountbatten Windsor, not as Their Royal Highnesses the Duke and Duchess of Sussex.

I'm sorry it has come to this and I hope they will be happy in their new life but I can't see that happening, the British Media is not going to be any less intrusive than they are now.

I think Meghan was reaching for Melinda Gates status but only had the internal stuff to get to a Real Housewives of Pick a City place. I hope that the cashing in will also include some significant outflow for the public good or it will not end well for them. Americans can be every bit tenacious as the Brits at following the money.